Israel is frequently accused of racism, particularly by those who continue to undermine her right to exist.  Despite being forced to fight a war of survival against the Arab nations since independence in 1948, Israel continues to come under a microscope for the way in which she behaves towards Arabs who are Israeli citizens, and those who are not.  It is a complex analysis, and not simply an issue of racism.  Arab citizens have a completely different status in Israel.  Their allegiance to the Jewish state in which they live and which feeds their every need, continues to be under suspicion.  They have frequently been found to assist those who wish to destroy Israel.  They are not obliged to serve in the nation’s army in the same way as others citizens are required to do.  The relationship between Jew and Arab in Israel is not simply about race, but more about Jewish survival in the Jewish homeland.  There is, however, another sort of racism that has reared its ugly head in Israel in recent times, and which needs to be stamped out before it is becomes unmanageable.

It seems that the practice of attempting to elevate the status of one population group at the expense of others is almost part of human instinct.  Historically, Jews have been victims of those who have tried to increase their own social standing by putting down other weaker groups. The African nation has also suffered from this problem almost wherever their people have found themselves, both within Africa and elsewhere.  In modern America, the Mexicans play the role of the fall guys, in India the caste system defines those who are at the bottom of the ladder, Gypsies in Europe are frequently discriminated against and Philippino workers in the countries of the Gulf of Arabia take their place at the bottom of society.  This instinct has unfortunately not by-passed Israel.

In the early years of the State of Israel, the country was populated by two distinct groups of Jews.  The first group escaped many years of persecution in Europe, and arrived in Israel out of the ruins of the Holocaust that ravaged their population and people.  The second group had made their homes in Arab countries of the Middle East and North Africa, and had been forced to endure discrimination for many years, especially during the period when the Holocaust was ravaging Europe.  This discrimination became even more acute after the birth of the State of Israel, and many were expelled from their homes.  Those in the European group were generally better educated and were well versed in European culture, while those in the Middle Eastern group were less exposed to western values, education and culture.  Many clashes took place between these groups, and the human instinct came out in their attempts to elevate themselves to make themselves better than the others.  The horrific discrimination that each group had been forced to endure in the years prior to their arrival in Israel had a significant influence on their attempts to better themselves, even at the expense of others.  After having been treated as the dregs of society for so long, each group was eager to elevate themselves to the top of society.  To be at the top, you need to have somebody who is below you.  Hence was born racism and discrimination in Israel, which manifested itself largely in the form of European Jews discriminating against Middle Eastern Jews.  The fact that the Middle Eastern Jews were also generally darker skinned than their European counterparts also somehow fitted the standard expectations of discrimination, even though the darker skin was not the source of the discrimination.  Despite the fact that these discriminatory views have presented their problems over the years, it is pleasing to note that the problem has been substantially diluted by inter-marriage and the blurring of edges between the two groups.  It is also notable that representatives from both groups have reached the upper echelons of business, politics and academia.  Nobody will ever forget where they and their families have come from, but the future in Israel looks less defined by these two groups than was previously the case.

Recently, however, racism has again become evident, this time against another weaker population group in Israel.  In operations starting in 1984, Jews from Ethiopia were airlifted to Israel in large numbers.  Operation Moses saw some 8,000 people brought to Israel and this was followed up with further operations which brought a total of about 80,000 people to Israel.  Today, the Ethiopian community in Israel numbers over 120,000.  The Ethiopians have become easy targets for discrimination for a number of reasons, and many have taken advantage of this situation

Upon their arrival in Israel, the Ethiopian community was forced to take on an entirely new environment.  Many of them had never seen a flush toilet in operation or slept in a bed that was not on the ground.  This learning process put them in a very weak position, and made it easy for others to take advantage of them.  The Ethiopians show a gentle and mild temperament, and are not outspoken or loud in their actions.  In the Israeli aggressive and rough-and-tumble environment, their gentleness is interpreted as weakness.  In the Israeli context of whoever screams loudest and shows most aggression will get what they want, the Ethiopian community has lost out significantly.  Even though the Ethiopian community has been forced to take on many of the ways of the modern Israeli environment, they have still done their best to maintain some of their traditions and practices from their days in the deserts of Africa.  Many of these practices are very different from those in use by other Israelis, and cause some level of friction in residential neighbourhoods.  This friction crossed the line last week when it was revealed that residents of some apartment buildings in Kiryat Malachi, had banded together in a pact not to sell apartments in their block to Ethiopian families.

What these people had not realised, is that there is a new type of person that has arisen within the Ethiopian community over the past ten years or so.  This is a group of teenagers and young adults who were born in Israel, and have grown up with Israeli style of doing business.  While these people are strongly influenced from the home by the traditional Ethiopian style of living, they also know the kind of action that is needed in Israel to be heard and to get what they want.  These young adults led other members of the Ethiopian community out onto the streets in protest against the racist practices that are making things difficult for their community.  This protest captured the attention of the media and of the nation.  It reached the highest levels of the political establishment, and President Shimon Peres responded by visiting a school in Jerusalem that caters to a large number of Ethiopian students.  He shared with them his experiences of coming to Israel from Poland at the age of 11, and the taunts that he was forced to endure as a result of his lack of Hebrew and different style of dress.  He reassured the children by saying that he found his way of fitting into Israeli society, and he is proof that they can achieve whatever they want – even becoming president of the state.

The Ethiopian community includes some of the most genuine people to be found in Israel today.  They gave up everything they knew and their style of living in Africa to come to the Jewish homeland.  Despite the fact that their lives and communities have literally been turned upside down by moving to Israel, they are delighted to be in Israel to be allowed to practice their Jewish faith and peace and without the fear of anti-Semitism.  They have suffered every sort of discrimination known to any group of people in Israel.  Even the Israeli government stands accused of discriminating against the Ethiopians in terms of the help and assistance provided to them.  Many were forced to convert as the Jewishness was not recognised at the same time as blood relatives had been accepted as Jewish.  The amount of money allocated to the process of acclimatising the Ethiopian community has been a fraction of that required.  And yet, they are simply delighted to be in the Land of Israel.  While it is understood that not everybody can feel comfortable with the style of living and practices of the Ethiopians, this cannot be the cause of racism.

No matter what the cause of racism, it needs to be stamped out.  This is particularly true in a country like Israel where racism has no place at all.  The weaker members of our society, usually those who are the victims of discrimination, require greater help and support rather than actions to increase their hardship.  This is particularly true of groups like the Ethiopians who have been forced to undergo dramatic changes to their way of life and to the environment in which they live.

It is only by banding together and strengthening the weaker parts of our society, that we will also have the strength to fight the war of survival.  The Ethiopians have more than demonstrated their allegiance to this cause, and their willingness to participate in the defence of the State of Israel.  The other citizens of Israel need to do all that they can to support and respect this.

Image by reutrcohen.com

Racism Has No Place in the State of Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Being Uplifted From a Most Unlikely Place
2. Israel: Apartheid State and Oppresor
3. Israel Intends To Boycott UN Anti-Racism Event

The meeting of the Judicial Appointments Committee on Friday turned out to be something of a pleasant anti-climax.  In a meeting that lasted only 90 minutes, four new justices were duly appointed to the bench of the Israeli Supreme Court.  The cordial nature of the meeting and the appointments seemed to conceal the less-than-cordial path that led to this moment.

Israel’s Supreme Court plays a very central role in Israeli society.  In addition to acting as an appellate court, it also acts as a High Court of Justice in which decisions by government and state authorities can be challenged and set aside.  The right of the Supreme Court to set aside government decisions creates a critical place for it in Israeli democracy.  It is little wonder that the appointment of new justices to the bench of this court is such an important and controversial exercise.  Once appointed to the Supreme Court, justices serve until they are seventy years of age and cannot be removed except under extreme circumstances.  The judges on the bench need to be act independently of government, and need to be seen to act independently of government to maintain their important role as defender of democracy.

For some time now, certain ultra-Orthodox and right-wing citizens of Israel have protested that decisions by the Supreme Court have discriminated against their views and positions.  While many Israelis have regarded the court’s decisions as representing the voice of reason in situations which have seemed wholly unreasonable, some groups feel discriminated against by these decisions.  Surprisingly, it seems as if this view was not only shared by extremists.  In the lead-up to the meeting of the Judicial Appointments Committee, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister threatened to become caught up in a judicial appointments row.  Their actions pointed unashamedly to the fact that they also subscribe to the view that the bench of the Supreme Court has become too left-wing.  Certain actions and statements on their behalf attempted to influence the makeup of the Judicial Appointments Committee in the hope that this may influence the appointment of the Supreme Court judges towards their right-wing views.

The nine-man Judicial Appointments Committee includes two members who are appointed by the Israeli Bar Association.    The remaining seven members of the committee are made up of three sitting judges of the Supreme Court, two ministers and two members of Knesset.  The two Bar Association representatives are chosen in a vote that is conducted according to a simple majority.  The two representatives were chosen to the satisfaction of the Bar Association, and this revealed that one representative was somebody known to be politically left of centre.  Individuals close to the Minister of Justice embarked upon a campaign to retroactively change the rules by which the Bar Association candidates were selected, in order to replace the left-wing representative.  It was hoped that this would ensure that the right-wing candidates to the bench would be appointed.  This attempt to undermine the due process of appointment of justices is shameful, and can be seen as an attempt to meddle with an important arm of the democracy of our nation.  No person is larger than the system, and no individual should be allowed to undermine the operation of a process that is so fundamental to the democracy of the country.

Ultimately, the attempts to change the rules retroactively were unsuccessful, and the original vote of the Bar Association stood.  Their two representatives took their place on the Judicial Appointments Committee and four new judges were appointed.  Despite the controversy and shenanigans leading up to the vote, the four new candidates can be seen as typifying compromise and organisation.  Justice Noam Sohlberg lives in Alon Shvut on the West Bank, and was elected by eight of the nine committee members as a representative of the right.  Justice Zvi Zylbertal  was elected unanimously as a candidate from the left.  He is regarded as being very close to retiring Judge President Dorit Beinisch.  Justice Uri Shoham was also elected unanimously, and is seen to represent those of North African and Middle Easter (Mizrachi) origin.  Finally, Justice Daphne Barak-Erez received unanimous support as the only female new judge.

Whereas in the USA, the appointment of judges is a highly politicised process and is a good way for presidents to leave a legacy long after the end of their presidential term, in Israel this has not been the case until now.  It may, however be set to change in the future, even though it seems as though this would be an unfortunate development.  Due to the fact that the Israeli Supreme Court is frequently called upon to adjudicate matters which have strong political overtones, it is important that the bench should be as politically impartial as possible.   This is particularly true when living in a society with so many minority groupings.  Citizens should feel confident that the Supreme Court will judge fairly and independently on each case that is brought before the court.  On this occasion, democracy has ensured that even the Minister of Justice was unable to influence the process of justice.  This is real democracy in action.

Justice Prevails is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Is Jerusalem in Israel?
2. Israeli Supreme Court Upholds Gaza Actions
3. High Court: Israel Must Demolish Palestinian Homes Too

Despite many indications that Israel is a country that appears to promote gender equality more than most other countries around the world, there have been worrying signs of greater gender segregation creeping into some aspects of Israeli society recently.  Israel’s Golda Meir was only the third female prime minister in the world, and Israeli women are required to serve in the Israeli army in the same way as their male counterparts.  Yet this is the same country which closes entire streets off to the use of women, and requires them to sit at the back of the bus while their male counterparts sit at the front.

Ultra-Orthodox groups in Jerusalem and elsewhere around Israel, have been increasingly trying to enforce greater gender segregation.  There is also already fairly strict gender segregation enforced in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods such as Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim.  This is tolerable inasmuch as those who are subject to the segregation, are those who subscribe to it.  For the people living in Mea Shearim, gender segregation is part of their belief system and lifestyle.  Women are raised with this from birth, attend separate schools and are readied to take on separate traditional roles in the home and society.  Visitors to Mea Shearim know that this is the way in which things work in this neighbourhood, and are invited to stay away if this is objectionable to them.

The problem arises when supporters of gender segregation allow this to creep out into the general public, thereby affecting those who do not subscribe to it.  This has already long been the case in Jerusalem, with advertisers refusing to show images of women on buses and billboards for fear of them being defaced by ultra-Orthodox protestors.  Despite a court order prohibiting gender segregation in specific streets, even in ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods, residents of Mea Shearim set up separation barriers on Mea Shearim Street and Shivtei Yisrael Street during the recent Succot holiday.  The hard-line Toldot Aharon Hassidic sect were holding events relating to the holiday on locations in these streets, and were prohibiting women from approaching even near to these locations.

Two recent events have brought the gender segregation to a head, and have forced politicians and religious leaders to speak out on the issue.  The first event was a walkout of a military ceremony by religious soldiers when women soldiers began to sing at the ceremony.  The protestors subscribe to the so-called “kol isha” prohibition, which forbids males from hearing women sing.  The IDF’s general staff has refused to back down on this issue.  The protesting soldiers were not given permission to leave the ceremony , and have been disciplined for their behaviour.  The military authorities have refused to heed calls to ban singing by women in future ceremonies.  This has brought the military into direct conflict with some ultra-Orthodox groups.

The second incident took place on a bus that was designated as a gender-separate service, something that has become more popular in Israel in recent years.  This means that women are required to sit at the back of the bus, while their male counterparts get to sit in the front.  Upon entering the bus, Tanya Rosenblit was requested by one of the religious males to sit in the ladies’ section at the bank.  In a protest which was reminiscent of the actions by Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama in the 1950s, Tanya refused to relocate to the back of the bus.  This sparked a stand-off in which the bus was halted and the police called.  In a statement after the incident, Rosenblit said that she had shown respect by dressing modestly because she knew she was going into a religious area.  She refused, however, to be humiliated by being forced to sit at the back of the bus.  She has taken on a somewhat heroic status in the eyes of many, by being prepared to stand up to the religious coercion, something that few women have been prepared to do.

Israeli Chief Rabbi, Yona Metzger, came out recently saying that religious people are entitled to live their lives as they see fit, but they have no right to impose their views on the general public and in public areas.  Prime Minister Netanyahu announced at the Sunday morning cabinet meeting that Israel is a liberal democracy, and that public spaces are made available to men and women to use equally in a safe and open way.  The police will arrest those who spit, raise their hand or harass others.  These statements will sadly have no bearing at all on those who perpetrate gender segregation.  They do not respect these leaders, nor take note of anything they say.  They subscribe only to the leadership of the rabbinical leaders of their sects, and will only be guided by their statements.

It is ironic that these events take place at the same time that it is announced that no fewer than 5 female pilots and navigators, the most ever, will graduate from this year’s air force flight instruction course.  It is only 16 short years since Alice Miller succeeded in challenging the prohibition on women being admitted to the flight instruction course.  Since then, many women have graduated from this course to serve their country with great distinction.  This year, 5 more women will join their distinguished ranks.  This is closer to the Israel that most of us know, a country which does support the equality of women in our society and which does encourage women to play a full role.

Despite the insistence by religious groups to enforce greater gender segregation and become more extreme in their views and actions, it seems unlikely that the greater public and the politicians will tolerate this.  While this does not mean that religious groups will be forced to dilute their religious observance, it simply means that they will be forced to limit their extreme views to their own environments, while allowing others to live their lives without being dictated to.  Surely this is the correct answer.

Image by www.mizozo.com

Gender Segregation Pushed Too Far is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Religious Bus Lines

I was horrified to read the details of the trial of Johannes Martarsian, which took place in the Jerusalem Magistrates Court last week.  Martarsian, an Armenian priesthood student, was charged with assault after he punched an ultra-orthodox Jew in the face and made him bleed.  The incident took place in Jerusalem’s old city after the ultra-Orthodox man spat at Martarsian.

Judge Dov Pollock annulled the indictment against Martarsian and wrote, “putting the defendant on trial for a single blow at a man who spat at his face, after suffering the degradation of being spat on for years while walking around in his church robes is a fundamental contravention of the principles of justice and decency.”  Fortunately, in this case, the judge had the good sense not to waste any more taxpayer money on proceeding to a trial.  Throwing the case out of court was exactly the right response to such a disgraceful situation.

The trial has brought to the fore some of the bad behaviour which is prevalent amongst the ultra-Orthodox community.  It seems as though the spitting incident is not an isolated one.  Clergymen from the Armenian church who are based in Jerusalem report that they are frequently subject to being spat and cursed at by ultra-Orthodox Jews.  One Armenian priest said that he wonders to himself if he will be spat at each time he walks by an ultra-Orthodox Jew in the street.  For some priests, it is difficult to simply ignore the repeated incidents of bad behaviour that they are forced to endure.  Johannes Martarsian is an example of one who decided to respond rather than to simply turn the other cheek, despite the fact that Armenian priests are encouraged by their church not to respond to these incidents of gross provocation.

The ultra-Orthodox community in Jerusalem has an unfortunate reputation for bad behaviour in many different situations.  Women who venture into ultra-Orthodox neighbourhoods in Jerusalem like Mea Shearim, and who are not dressed according to the ultra-Orthodox conservative dress code, will already know that they also become spitting targets.  Equally, cars driving through religious neighbourhoods on Shabbat have been subject to stoning attacks.  This has given rise to the famous T-shirt that has been sold in Jerusalem and purchased by thousands of tourists stating, “I got stoned in Mea Shearim”!  Although these types of attacks are unacceptable, there may be some part of a reasonable person that could condone such behaviour where people enter religious neighbourhoods without respecting the norms of the people that live there.

The attacks on the priests seem of a completely different nature.  There is no disrespect of the ultra-Orthodox lifestyle involved, and no violation of the norms by which they live.  Jerusalem is a city which is open to all religions which wish to be present there.  Not only is this a policy which is rigorously adhered to by the Israeli government and the city of Jerusalem, it is also the source of a great deal of tourist Dollars into the city.  At times, it seems as though the ultra-Orthodox community are completely divorced from the society in which they live, and their actions cannot be tolerated by other reasonable people.  The truth is, that some of their actions are so intolerable, that even those who have grown up within their sects and have become used to their social norms, cannot accept the way in which some situations are dealt with.

The types of insults that these young men give by spitting at others created in G-d’s image, have caused me to wonder how they can reconcile this behaviour with their religious beliefs.  The Jewish religion believes in 613 mitzvot (precepts) that observers are required to adhere to.  They are split into mitzvot concerning man’s relationship with his G-d, and mitzvot concerning man’s relationship with his fellow-man.  Neither group has precedence over the other – they are both equally important.  On many occasions such as stoning a car that is transgressing the Shabbat, the justification for the action taken by somebody against his fellow-man is to protect his relationship with his G-d.  In light of the fact that these mitzvot do not enjoy precedence, there is a view that says that the transgression against the fellow-man cannot be justified, even if it is an act to protect his relationship with his G-d.  The act of spitting at the priests, however, seems to serve no religious purpose at all and has no positive side to it.  Rather, it represents an act of unjustified discrimination.  So how much less can this be justified in religious terms?

What is even more unfortunate about this sad situation, is the fact that priests say that reports made about these incidents to the police fall on deaf ears.  Perhaps it is because the police feel that it is impossible to catch the perpetrators and bring them to justice, that no action is taken.  It is also fair to say that Jerusalem’s police force has its hands full with high-level security threats which it is required to take care of on an ongoing basis.  Whatever the reason for the lack of action, it is sends an entirely wrong message about the acceptability of this behaviour.

The ultra-Orthodox community present themselves as representing all that is good when acting in strict observance of the Torah.  Too often, however, the pursuit of individual points of observance causes the individual to lose the wood for the trees.  There seems to be no broader perspective, or ability to see the bigger picture.  This is extremely damaging to the standing of the ultra-Orthodox community in the world in which they are forced to live.  The time has come for concerted action to be taken to change the bad behaviour.  The yeshivot (institutions of religious learning) need to be responsible for teaching their students about the unacceptability of spitting at others.  The police on the streets need to keep their eyes open for such incidents, and act upon them immediately.

Jerusalem is a city that is open to people of all religions to visit and to live in.  While it serves as the capital of the Jewish State of Israel, the government has undertaken that the city will be open to all religions for tourism, learning and worship.  This means that it is not the private domain of ultra-Orthodox Jews, even though it is their religion’s holiest city.  There should be no reason why priests who have come to Jerusalem for the purpose of furthering their religious studies and experiences, should be subject to any sort of bad behaviour by ultra-Orthodox Jews or anybody else.  The time has come to take action to stop this intolerance and insulting behaviour.

A Spitting Shame is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Netanyahu’s Yom HaShoah Remarks

Israel experienced its highest-ever TV ratings over a one day period last week on Tuesday, when captured IDF soldier Gilad Shalit finally returned home.  The nation was glued to its TV sets as we watched events unfold over the day, finally culminating in a weak-looking Gilad returning to Israel and to the waiting arms of his family.  He had spent 5 years and 4 months held in captivity by Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Representatives from Hamas have made public statements about how well Gilad was treated.  It is claimed that he was well fed during the years of his captivity, and allowed access to media including Israeli TV and radio broadcasts.  Although they have also claimed that he was not subject to torture at their hands, Gilad’s father Noam has expressed doubt about this.  He does, however, concur with the Hamas statements that Gilad was treated better in the latter years of his captivity.  Noam’s comments allow us to believe that the first years were not easy, and may well have included torture.  The facts on the day of the prisoner transfer, however, speak for themselves.  It was difficult not to notice the stark difference in the conditions of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released by Israel, when compared to that of Gilad.  The Palestinian prisoners looked well-fed and physically in good health as they sat on buses and smoked while waiting for the exchange deal to proceed.  They had been granted access to members of their family and international organisations as required by the Geneva Convention.  The same could not be said for Gilad, who walked with difficulty after being kept away from daylight for most of his years in captivity.  Neither his family nor members of the International Committee of the Red Cross were allowed access to him for more than 5 years, despite repeated requests.

As Gilad tries to get to know his family and friends again at his home in Mitzpe Hila, the debate rages through the pages of the Israeli press and around the world about whether the prisoner exchange deal that secured his release was justified.  With 477 Palestinian prisoners already released, and a further 550 slated for release in 2 months’ time as part of the deal, there are those in Israel who feel that the price paid for the return of just one prisoner was too high.  This view is even further enhanced when considering the crimes committed by those who have been set free.  The list of released prisoners includes murderers and terrorists who collectively succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Israelis.  The incidents in which these attacks took place range from the detonation of a bomb in pizza restaurant in downtown Jerusalem to an explosion at a hotel where thousands celebrated the Passover holiday, and more.  It is perfectly understandable that the family members of the victims of these attacks are suffering anguish as a result of these killers being set free.  There are those who believe that the release of these terrorists, many of whom have vowed to return to their old murderous ways, increases the security risk to Israeli civilians.  There are many naysayers who are literally waiting for the next wave of terror attacks to hit Israel in order to justify their resistance to prisoner exchange deal.  Yet others are opposed to the deal because they believe that it represents capitulation to terrorists, and encourages them to kidnap Israeli soldiers or civilians in the future in order to secure similar deals.  This prisoner exchange agreement, they say, shows a weakness on the part of the Israeli government and her citizens.

Most of the points for and against the exchange deal are fairly well-known, and have enjoyed broad discussion in the Israeli and international press.  There are, however, additional considerations that have come to my mind, and which are perhaps less widely discussed.  The first point is that the concept of a prisoner exchange deal of this nature is not new.  The truth is that Israel has been doing such deals for many years.  The only thing that has differed from one deal to another, are the names and the numbers.  Over the past 30 years, Israel has released some 7,000 Palestinian prisoners and released the remains of many more.  In exchange Israel has received 19 Israelis and the remains of 8 others.  Looking back over the years, I don’t believe that this has weakened Israel in any way, or shown that it is capitulating to terrorism.  On the contrary, Israel has increased its defences against terrorists in a variety of different ways to strengthen its opposition to the vile actions taken against innocent civilians.  At times, Israel has employed fairly extreme anti-terror defences, including a policy of targeted killings against those orchestrating terror activities or carrying them out.  This surely demonstrates that Israel is not getting soft on terrorists.  While agreeing to enter into prisoner swaps on the one hand, Israel has shown itself to be extremely tough on terror in many other ways.

Instead of interpreting exchange deals as showing weakness to terrorists, it is my belief that Israel is showing strength by adhering to basic principles and values which are fundamental in the Jewish religion.  These same principles are the same ones that most reasonable people around the world would identify with.  These are the principles of attaching value to the life of each and every citizen of Israel, particularly those who have fallen into captivity during the course of serving in the country’s army.  This makes an important and powerful statement, not only to those serving in the army and their families, but also to our enemies.  Often, a strong set of values and principles is more important than military strength.  Armies around the world will tell you that it is tougher to fight against an enemy which has strong fundamental beliefs in its cause and in its values, than an enemy that does not.  This has not gone unnoticed in the Arab press.  A reporter writing in Abu Dhabi’s English language Gulf News wrote, “It is not a secret at all that the value of an Arab person in the stock-exchange of Arab regimes is sort of nil ….  Have you ever seen an Arab regime trying to get its captives out of Israeli prisons?  Forget about it.  Most Arab regimes have no problem at all letting their nationals die in Israeli jails.”  I believe that such actions do not serve to strengthen a society.  It is my view that this attitude shows greater weakness than being prepared to stay to true to a country’s citizens, even if this means having to release terrorists.

Israel has a few weak spots in its history of valuing and securing the release of its citizens held by enemies.  Three soldiers, Zachary Baumel, Tzvi Feldman and Yehuda Katz were captured by Syrian authorities in their tank in the Golan Heights in 1982.  They have not been heard from since then, and are presumed dead.  No evidence has been produced to support this view, however, and the three are listed as missing in action.  A similar story is the one of missing Israeli airman Ron Arad, which captured the attention, imagination and sympathy of the world.  Navigator Arad bailed out of his plane over Lebanon, and was captured by the enemy in 1986.  He was known to have been alive as late as 1988, after having been “sold” by Hezbollah to the Iranians.  Israeli attempts to free Arad came to nothing, and there is a strong suspicion that he died during the course of his captivity.  For 25 years, his wife and family have been unable to move on with their lives as there is no official pronouncement of life or death.  Officially, he is missing in action.  These are stains on Israel’s record, and all Israelis know this.

Every nation at war is called upon to make tough decisions.  Sometimes, these decisions involve the possibility of “sacrificing” soldiers or other individuals in the interests of a greater good, or the safety of a large number of others.  In the case of Gilad Shalit, I think that any decision to sacrifice him in exchange for keeping 1,027 terrorists in prison would have been one of the toughest for anybody to make.  In due course, we think we will know the price of not sacrificing him, but it is still difficult to say that any terror activities that may occur over the coming months and years would not have occurred if the 1,027 had remained in prison.  It is my belief that there are enough “terrorists in waiting” out there to make the impact that the 1,027 may make, look insignificant.

On balance, given the alternatives between another Ron Arad situation or the current Gilad Shalit situation, the choice for me is an easy one.  We are obliged to value the life that we know that we can rescue.  In this respect, the government has made exactly the right decision.  We are also obliged to ensure that those who are released, are not allowed to cause any further damage or bloodshed.  I am sure that the IDF is on a close look-out for this.  And even though many will interpret the release of the terrorists is to be an insult to the memories of those who were killed at their hands, it is really a clear statement of the value of life.  Even if it is only one.

It is my wish that Gilad will enjoy a quick and full recovery to everyday life, and that he and his family will enjoy many years of health and happiness together.  It is equally my wish that the memories of those who were brutally murdered by terrorists, will be for a blessing.  Perhaps, above all, the fact that our society can hold this type of debate in an open and honest way, is a great demonstration of our democracy at work to build a just, caring and sensitive society.  Am Yisrael Chai – The People of Israel live!

Gilad is Finally Home, But the Controversy Rages On is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. Welcome Home Gilad
2. Gilad To Be Released – The Agony With The Ecstasy
3. Mubarak Finally Goes

This is a guest post from Brett Borders. He is a copywriter living in Denver, CO. He cares about the safety and future of minority religions and ethnic groups in the Middle East.

The Jewish state of Israel is geographically one of the smallest countries in the world. Although Israel is 8 times smaller than Florida, it gets a disproportionately high percent of media coverage. Since the Jewish state was recognized by the UN in 1948, it has been attacked repeatedly by Arab Muslim neighbors – from suicide bombing campaigns, to full-scale surprise invasions by multiple armies. This perpetual conflict has kept Israel in the news spotlight… but many of the notions that are being repeated in syndicated news wires, opinion columns and online comments are not factual or accurate.

Here are 4 common, but false, myths about Israel to watch out for:

1. Most Israelis Are “European Colonists”

False. Over 20% of Israel’s population are Arabs. Of the 73% that is Jewish, over 50% the Jews are Mizhrai Jews who are members or descendants of ancient, indigenous Jewish communities in the Middle East who fled or were expelled from their homes in Arab lands. A minority of the Israeli population are Ashkenazi Jews, whose ancestors came to Israel from Europe and the USSR – many as refugees from genocide or persecution (who did not arrive by choice). 70% of the people now living in Israel were born in Israel (“sabras”). The facts are simple: Hebrew, Jews and Judaism are indigenous native to Israel. Arabic, Arabs and Islam are indigenous native to the Arabian peninsula.

2. Israel “Stole” and Now “Occupies” Palestinian Land

False. Israel is a tiny spec on the map compared to the empire of 22 Arabs countries it sits in the mist of. Israel had no presence in the disputed West Bank (Judea and Samaria) before it was attacked by Jordan in 1967. Jordan lost the war and relinquished control of the area – and Israel has maintained a defensive military presence there till this day. Interestingly, there was no mention of a self-aware “Palestinian people” or nation before the mid-1960′s – when they simply called themselves Arabs. In the absence of a stable government or peace agreements with the Arab population in the former Jordanian territory, Jewish villages (“settlements’) were built on vacant or legally-purchased-from-the-owners land in the disputed areas of the Jewish ancestral & historical heartland. Israel has offered to sign a peace treaty and cede some of the disputed land to Arabs in West Bank since 1967… but to date, all sincere peace offers by Israel have been rejected by Palestinian Arabs.

3. Israel is a Racist or “Apartheid” State

False. Israel is the only country in the region where freedom of religion, women’s rights, minority and gay rights are fully guaranteed under law. Aparthied was a South African system where colonists (not refugees) went to a land that they had zero historical connection to and then systematically denied rights to the natives based on race. The situation in the West Bank is very different. The government and Arab residents of the area are at war with Israel. Israel has erected security walls and checkpoints to stop suicide bombers and snipers from infiltrating Israel. The checkpoints and settlements are a result of the continued Arab conflict (or “jihad”) against Israel, not the cause of it. There are more than a few actual racist and apartheid states in the Middle East – were minorities have limited rights under law and women forcibly segregated from men by “Modesty Police.”

4. Israel “Won’t Make Peace with Its Neighbors”

False. Israel has made great efforts to make peace with its neighbors and it has already signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Israel withdrew its troops from fighting the PLO in Southern Lebanon in 2000. This did not bring peace… it allowed Iran to smuggle over 40,000 rockets into the vacated region and point them at Israel to further escalate tension. Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Arab-majority area of Gaza in 2005 as a sincere peace gesture to Palestinian Arabs. It did not bring peace. The number of terror and rocket attacks originating from the Gaza Strip increased exponentially, and crimes against humanity like hostage abductions and attacks on school buses have taken place.

This video, “The Truth About The Peace Process,” explains Israel’s numerous attempts to make peace with its Arab neighbors… and equally numerous times that its efforts to make peace have flatly been ignored, rebuffed and rejected:

4 Common But False Myths About Israel is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. UNHRC vs. Israel: A Common Conflict
2. Israel Situation Reference Book: Myths and Facts
3. Action or Reaction? The Rabbis’ Ruling in Context.

It started with a call for a million Israelis to take to the streets in a demonstration that would serve as the culmination of the social protests that have been taking place for the past two months.  For a country with a population of only 7 million, this was always going to be a tall order.  Ultimately, the call for a “million man march” to protest against economic hardships, struck a chord with enough people to mobilise more than 400,000 people.  This, in itself, was a record number of demonstrators that have ever attended a protest in the history of the State of Israel.  The equivalent in the USA would see 22 million people coming out to protest, and the equivalent in the UK would be more than 4 million.  I doubt very much that these numbers could be seen in demonstrations.

The social protests have the sympathy of most Israelis, including those who are not living below the breadline in the way that so many people are.  This was in evidence last Saturday evening, when many of those who took to the streets were not necessarily struggling to pay their monthly rental.  The notion of social justice impacts all aspects of Israeli society, and does not only affect those who are coping with financial difficulties.  Services such as health and education are provided by the government for all sectors of society, and have been used even by those who could afford to pay separately for private services.  Until now, the government-funded services have been of sufficiently high quality to satisfy all sectors of our society.  For me, this has been one of the most pleasant aspects of Israeli as a country, and one which contributes to one of the flattest societies in the western world.  There is nothing more pleasing than to see the rich and poor of the country receiving the same level of medical treatment and education, all provided by the government out of tax contributions.  Although this has been the case in Israel to now, the quality of services provided by the government have deteriorated in recent times.  This has contributed to all Israelis feeling the need to come out in protest to demonstrate their dissatisfaction at this situation.

It is true that many of those in the upper income brackets are able to buy these services privately.  Private schools and health centres have begun to appear in recent years to satisfy this demand.  I feel that a great deal is lost in the process.  It is not only the fact that a two-tier system arises where the wealthy can buy what they need, and those who are in tougher financial circumstances are forced to take what they are offered.  For me, it is also the connection that one sees at schools and medical health centres between different sectors of our society that will be lost.  This will serve to enlarge the wealth gap that is already making itself evident in Israel.  I feel that this lost connection will be harmful to Israeli society.  In this respect, I was heartened to see the number of people who took to the streets, and to note that they were not only restricted to one sector of society or another.  It is a credit to the event organisers that they succeeded in appealing to so many different Israelis, and managed to entice them out of their homes to demonstrate their displeasure to the government.  All ages of the Israeli people could be seen together, including men, women and children of all ages including those in pushchairs and on the shoulders of their parents.

One of the most surprising aspects of the demonstrations, was the good atmosphere in which the gatherings were held.  At the main event in Tel Aviv’s Kikar Hamedina which attracted almost 300,000 people, a stage was constructed on which some of Israel’s biggest names in music and entertainment appeared during the course of the evening of protest.  Not only did this demonstrate their identification with the important cause, it also lent something of a party spirit to the event.  So, while anger was in evidence against the government’s seeming lack of willingness to engage with the protestors and their cause, there was also a great spirit in evidence when the entertainers took to the stage.  Once the show was over, everybody returned quietly to their homes without any major incident or violence.  The traffic may have been heavy, but crowd never got out of control, and always remembered the reason that they had come out on that evening.

I could not help comparing this event to some other protest events that have taken place around the world in recent months.  The protest events in countries around the Arab world comprising the Arab Spring all resulted in violence and deaths or injuries initiated either by the protestors, or the authorities against which they were protesting.  The recent riots which took place in London got completely out of control, and resulted in extensive damage to personal property affecting many hundreds of people.  In contrast to these events, we saw real democracy at work.  The rule of law was exercised by both the protestors as well as by the authorities, while people were afforded their democratic right to have their say.  There could be no greater display of mutual respect of personal and social rights, than was seen during the course of this protest.  Israel is a stronger country for having experienced these demonstrations.

The protest movement has decided to take down their tents, and move to a different phase of negotiation and lobbying to bring their demands to fruition.  The fact that the tents will not be visible on the streets any longer does not mean that the protest is not continuing.  Whether or not their aims are ultimately achieved, it would be safe to say that Israel will not be the same country after the protests of the summer of 2011.  These protestors have forever changed the face of Israeli politics, protest and demonstration.  They have also unwittingly chosen an excellent time to demonstrate this.  It could not be more stark how the Arab spring and the Israeli summer have contrasted each other.

Israel’s Half Million Man March is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. $50 Million For Arab Israeli Business Development
2. Families of Murderers Given £5 million by PA
3. If Not For Holocast, There Would Be 32 million Jews

Last week, the Knesset passed a controversial law which has reignited the ongoing debate about the nature of Israel’s democracy. The new law, which enjoys the full support of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his ruling Likud party, makes it illegal to call for boycotts on Israel. It also makes it illegal to call for boycotts on parts of Israel, such as the settlements or the West Bank.
Over the 63 years of its existence, Israel has suffered a great deal from the effects of boycotts, which have been directed against Israel by those opposed to her continued existence. The most notable and widely reported of these boycotts has been the Arab boycott. This has not only been directed against Israel herself, but also against companies that have had links with or representation in Israel. It has been interesting to note how this boycott has been applied in a highly selective manner. Companies like Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Apple and Microsoft have continued to sell their products in the Arab world, while still being widely represented in Israel.

It is one thing for enemies to call for boycotts to try to damage a country’s economy, in an attempt to change the politics within that country or a region. It becomes quite another thing when those who are considered closer to the country, for example citizens of the country, use these tactics. It seems as if this was the moment when the Israeli government stepped in and decided that action needed to be taken against those calling for boycotts. There are those who argue that calling for a boycott is tantamount to treason, particularly for a country like Israel which already finds itself in a precarious situation. This is what prompted the government to step in, and to pass a law that makes it illegal to call for boycotts. More than this, the government has enacted that companies or individuals making such calls will be excluded from bidding on government tenders.

The controversy during the passage of the bill resulted in the final version being somewhat diluted from the original draft of the bill. Originally, it was recommended that it be a criminal offense to call for boycotts against Israel. By the time the law passed its final hearing, it was enacted that calling for boycotts would not be a criminal offense, but would rather be a civil offense. Although one cannot be arrested and charged by the state when calling for boycotts, it does mean that anybody who is the target of such boycott can sue the accused in a court of law, while not having to prove that actual damage was caused. The fine on those found guilty of this offense has been left to the court in question to rule upon.

Any controversy that was evident in and around the corridors of the Knesset during the time that the bill was in its draft form, have erupted into much greater levels of opposition since the bill was passed. The debate and controversy has focused upon whether such a bill is undemocratic. Is it a limitation on the freedom of speech of the individual to prevent him from calling for a boycott on the country in which he lives? Some highly respected legal opinions think that this is the case. Although Israeli State Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein sees no conflict between the new law and freedom of speech, the legal adviser to the Knesset does not agree. Eyal Yanon issued an opinion which states that parts of the law “edge toward illegality and beyond”. A group of 32 Israeli law professors and senior legal academics signed a petition to demonstrate their objection to the law on a legal basis. It is their view that it should be the right of all citizens to be able to say what they feel, and to take actions to support this including the call for boycotts on Israel. There is clearly more than simply a passing concern about the impact of the new law on Israeli democracy. This, in turn, causes much consternation as Israelis are extremely protective over the democratic nature of the state.

If we take this scenario into the world of business for a moment, the rules seem clearer cut. It is acceptable to cause economic damage to competitors, so long as the actions taken are legal and within the realms of fair competitive action. It is unacceptable, however, to make calls for actions against the company for which you work, which may have a significant detrimental impact on the company. This is likely to be a firing offense. The rule is, that if you cannot live with the policies followed by your employer, you need to find employment elsewhere rather than try to militate from within to cause your company damage. Do the same rules not apply to the country in which you live? Should the state not have the right to demand some level of loyalty to be shown by those who enjoy the benefits that the state offers to its citizens? Should it not be an offense to bite the hand that feeds you, and protects you from the enemies of the world?

The effectiveness of calls for boycotts over the years is unclear. There are those who claim that the massive international boycotts applied against the apartheid government in South Africa were ultimately the catalyst that gave rise to democracy in that country. Boycotts applied against other countries, such as Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, North Korea and countless other countries over the years, seem not to have produced the desired results. Boycotts have surely caused damage to these countries, but not in sufficient amounts to bring about the changes that were desired by the boycotters. Boycotts have undoubtedly caused damage to the Israeli economy over the years. They have also served to prove correct the famous idiom based on a quotation from Plato, that “necessity is the mother of invention”. As a result of boycotts applied against her, Israel has developed her own capabilities and independence in so many industries that would otherwise not have been the case. In a perverse sort of way, Israel has probably gained more from boycotts than she has lost.

I find it difficult to understand how the law passed by the Knesset impinges on the democratic rights and freedom of expression available to Israelis. This is especially true when considering the fact that there is no criminal offense committed by those who transgress the new law. For me, the true test of our democracy and rights to freedom of speech is whether we are able to hold an open debate about our democracy without fear of retribution. In that sense, the boycott law has served to strengthen my faith in our democracy rather than weaken it. The process has proved that Arab members of Knesset have the right to make their opposition clear (as long as this is done within the rules by which Knesset debates are run), and a legal adviser employed by the Knesset is also entitled to publicly voice his opposition to a law passed by the same Knesset that pays his salary and feeds his children. Most important to me is the fact that those who think that they can enjoy the benefits of citizenship of the State of Israel, and also make public calls which will damage her economic and political well-being, will be forced to take responsibility for their actions in a court of law. This is true democracy in action.

Boycotts and Democracy is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. The Boycott Act – Defensive Democracy At It’s Best
2. Democracy or Extremism?
3. Iran: From Theocracy to Democracy

My friend Rick sent me a hilarious look at the luxury destinations you can visit on the “Flotilla Cruise Line.” As we all know, there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza. For example:

Opened since 2004, Grand Palace is one of the best hotels in Gaza city. Built to exceed customers expectation as it is located at the beach side of Gaza city with the direct beach view, the hotel welcomes its guests.

The distance between the hotel and the city center is approximately 3 km in a quiet peaceful area, where the reach to the city center is easy, while nothing is better than a 5 minute walk to the beach.

See the whole article at FlotillaCruiseLine.com.

Flotilla Cruise Line is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. More Flotilla Fallout – Global Updates
2. Gaza Flotilla is Running Out of Wind
3. The Next Gaza Flotilla

Yesterday marked the fifth anniversary since Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Hamas operatives on the Israeli side of the Gaza border. Five unrelenting years have passed without any outside organisation having been allowed access to the young soldier at all. His parents have fought a tireless battle to keep their son’s name on the agenda of the politicians, and on the lips and in the conscience of all members of the public.

How can such a situation arise, that five years are allowed to pass without any meaningful progress in securing Gilad’s release? Even Terry Waite was not forced to endure this length of captivity, and was released before 5 years had passed. The psychological impact on Waite of those years behind bars was dramatic (see The Long Waite), so what can we possibly hope for Gilad, if and when he is released?

The intentions behind Hamas’s decision to capture and hold Gilad were always based on pure evil. It was their view that they would be able to secure the release of Hamas terrorists held in Israeli jails, to allow them to return to kill and maim Israeli civilians. This view has been strengthened by the never-ending negotiations that have been ongoing between Israel and Hamas for the release of Gilad. These talks, sometimes facilitated by German mediators and sometimes by Egyptians, have focused on the number of Hamas prisoners that will be released, the specific names on the list and whether they will be released to the West Bank, Gaza or elsewhere. The Israeli demand is a simple one – to release Gilad safely into the hands of his parents. When dealing with organisations like Hamas (or like Hezbollah in the case of the capture of Terry Waite), their evil seems to know no bounds. There is no way of knowing what they might truly be prepared to agree to in order to release Gilad, and to what extent these protracted negotiations are simply a game to keep their name in the international headlines. The last communication and sign of life from Gilad was more than two years ago. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has repeatedly been denied access to him, contravening all international accepted norms in this respect. The latest appeal by the ICRC last week showed major concern about his well-being on their part. This time, they did not demand a sign of life, but immediate access to him. As before, the request was refused.

As time goes by, things certainly get worse. This applies particularly to the possibilities of seeing Gilad alive again. The capture of Israeli Air Force navigator Ron Arad is proof of that. Arad was captured in 1986 after bailing out of his plane over Lebanon. He was variously reported to have been held in Lebanon, Syria and Iran, but has never been seen since. A secret Israeli military report claimed that he died of an illness in 1995. The problem is that those that originally captured him were reported to have had no idea where he was, or who held him by that time. The trail became remote and cold. Simply to follow the track of where he was, and under whose responsibility, became an impossible task. The same danger exists for Gilad. Some of those who were involved in his original capture have been killed in operations with Israeli forces. Is he still being held in Gaza, or has he been smuggled via the tunnels into Egypt and then to who-knows-where? The more time that passes makes the tracking of his whereabouts increasingly difficult, and the prospects of his safe release increasingly remote.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has appointed mediators on behalf of the government to focus on this one matter, to bring Gilad home via a negotiated deal. He has accepted the involvement of the German and Egyptian mediators to resolve the issue. This has all been to no avail, as the ultimate goal has yet to be achieved. His latest statement on the matter is no different than the previous ones he has made. This amounts to stating that complying with the Hamas request for a prisoner swap would endanger too many Israelis. This is reference to the fact that those who would be released in terms of Hamas’s demands are those terrorists who have killed Israelis, and would do so again. He is, of course, showing some respect to the families of those who have been killed by these evil beasts. The problem is that, by keeping them in jail, no lives can be returned. By releasing them from jail, there is a life that can be returned. This must surely be the main consideration.

I don’t accept the statements by the prime minister, that the deal cannot be done because too many people’s lives will be endangered by doing so. While I do agree that imprisoning key individuals has contributed to a reduction in the attacks that Israel has been forced to endure from both Gaza and the West Bank, I also feel that there are ways of managing a process of releasing these beasts in return for them releasing Gilad. We have previously released individuals like Sheik Ahmed Yassin in prisoner swaps, who then immediately returned to his evil ways of orchestrating terror attacks on Israelis. He ultimately paid for this with his life when an Israeli Air Force strike killed him. Any deal to release terrorist prisoners will require extremely good Israeli intelligence to track these individuals following their release. Any sign of activities on their part to hurt Israelis, should be met with immediate action to eliminate them. Not only will this remove them and their evil ways from the picture, it will also reduce the inclination on the part of Hamas to capture Israelis to force a prisoner swap. There will be no prisoners to swap.

It is my view that there are enough terrorists running around the streets of the West Bank and Gaza willing to do harm to Israelis, such that the release of the prisoners will not make such a big impact on the situation. For every one sitting in jail, there are probably ten on the streets. Now is the time for the prime minister to act decisively. His announcement last week to rescind rights to academic study for terrorist prisoners does not go nearly far enough. The ironic calls by Hamas that this step contravenes the human rights of these prisoners is simply a joke. Since when has Hamas been concerned with human rights?

Mr Prime Minister, I call on you to accept whatever deal is on the table to bring Gilad home without further delay. This will not increase the danger in which the State of Israel lives, nor the danger that soldiers will be captured in the future. These are ever-present dangers that we are forced to live with, and confront on a daily basis. It will, however, send an important message to the Shalit family and to families up and down Israel whose children serve in the IDF. This is the message that you and the Israeli government will be prepared to do everything, everything to return our children under such difficult circumstances. The strength of this message is far more important than the message that is sent to Hamas regarding the number of prisoners that you are releasing. This decision is also likely to shape the legacy of your time in office. After all, you will forever be remembered as the prime minister who brought Gilad home. Now is the time to act, and to act soon before it is, G-d forbid, too late.

Please say a prayer for Gilad’s safe return.

Five Years and No Signs of Life is a post from: The Israel Situation

Related posts:

1. My Life Changed Four Years Ago Today
2. 120 Years and Little Has Changed
3. Battle of the Signs in Israeli Cities